finstack-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses geographic coverage (Indian NSE/BSE and US stocks), temporal scope (examples show 'last 4 years' for annual data), and specific data fields returned. It could improve by mentioning error behavior for invalid symbols or data freshness, but covers the essential behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, return value summary, geographic scope, Args documentation, and concrete Examples. Every sentence earns its place—the examples demonstrate actual invocation patterns and expected outputs without verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists (relieving the description from detailing return structure), the description provides appropriate context about the tool's capabilities and coverage. It successfully documents both parameters despite zero schema coverage. It could mention error handling or authentication requirements, but is otherwise complete for a financial data retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates through the Args section. It explains 'symbol' accepts stock tickers with concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS, AAPL, MSFT) and clarifies that 'quarterly' defaults to False for annual data, providing complete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool 'Get[s] income statement (Profit & Loss) for a company' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'balance_sheet' and 'cash_flow' by explicitly listing P&L-specific line items (revenue, COGS, gross profit, net income, EPS, EBITDA) that those other financial statement tools would not return.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool by listing the specific financial metrics it returns (P&L items), helping the agent select it for profit/loss analysis versus balance sheet analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance comparing it to siblings like 'balance_sheet' or 'cash_flow' or stating prerequisites like requiring a valid ticker symbol.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.